> On Mar 21, 2019, at 1:12 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayu...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:03 PM Trevor Vardeman <tvard...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've been working with mjturek and baha on this a bit. I've responded inline
> below, but also want to clarify on the desired workflow.
>
> TL;DR: The desired workflow is to have ppc64le and x86_64 seamlessly
> integrated and uploaded. This can be done with docker manifest list images.
>
> The following link explains in greater detail:
> https://docs.docker.com/registry/spec/manifest-v2-2/
>
> The process boils down to the following steps:
>
> 1) Upload an image of the first architecture (ex: image1:x86_64_01012019)
> 2) Upload an image of the second architecture (ex: image1:ppc64le_01012019)
> 3) Upload manifest list image of the image (ex: image1:01012019)
>
>
> I think this is implying we upload x86_64, and PPC containers to the rdo
> registry together. We specifically do NOT want to do that. One set of
> images should not be blocked by the other at this stage of the testing.
That's not quite right, the images can be uploaded separately, but for the
manifest list image to function properly you'd need both images uploaded.
Also, as for the tagging, I wasn't suggesting a change to how images are tagged
save for potentially modifying it such that the manifest list image is the
default tag, versus the x86_64 image.
>
> I only just read through the manifest doc, so I may be misunderstanding
> something.
> Any container built w/ tripleo should be tagged w/ the dlrn_hash used while
> building so if we needed some containers from x86_64 and some from PPC that
> should be relatively simple.
>
>
> Step 3 is essentially just pushing a JSON body that has descriptors and
> references to the other two images, such that when someone does a pull
> request of the manifest list image, it will gather the appropriate
> architecture for that image based on the host's architecture.
>
> -Trevor
>
> PS. If I've missed something important with the overall concerns here I
> apologize, but thought it necessary to spell out the goal as I understand it.
>
> > On Mar 21, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Javier Pena <jp...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Over the last few weeks, mjturek and baha have been busy working on a set
> >> of
> >> periodic jobs to build TripleO images for the ppc64le arch [1].
> >>
> >> The current missing step is publishing those images, and they are proposing
> >> to push those to the RDO Registry instance at registry.rdoproject.org, just
> >> like we do with our TripleO images. I have tried to understand the
> >> requirements, and would like to get input on the following topics:
> >>
> >> - Which namespace would these images use? Based on some logs [2] it looks
> >> like they use tripleomaster-ppc64le, will they also push the images to that
> >> namespace?
>
> I have no experience in namespaces inside of a registry or how that
> differentiates images from one another, but the images should be pushed (in
> my opinion) to the same location in which the x86 images reside.
>
> >> - Could this create any conflicts with our current promotion pipeline?
>
> This should not cause conflicts in current promotion pipeline, as the process
> should be an extension to existing functionality.
>
> >> - Is registry.rdo the right place for those images? I'm not familiar with
> >> the
> >> next steps for ppc64le images after that (will it then go through a
> >> promotion pipeline?), so that might affect.
>
> If the x86 images exist in registry.rdo, then the ppc64le (and any other
> architecture image) should exist there as well. I can't think of a reason to
> differentiate between architectures when the desired result is parity and
> support of more architectures.
>
> >>
> >> If we decide to upload the images to images.rdo, we'll need to do the
> >
> > Correction: this should read "registry.rdo"
> >
> >> following:
> >>
> >> - Create the tripleomaster-ppc64le namespace in registry.rdo, following a
> >> similar pattern to [3].
> >> - Schedule a short registry downtime to increase its disk space, since it
> >> is
> >> currently near its limit.
>
> This is definitely necessary, given the capacity requirement will double,
> give or take, to support the additional architecture.
>
> >> - Update the job at ci.centos to include the REGISTRY_PASSWORD environment
> >> variable with the right token (see [4]). This is missing today, and causing
> >> the job failure.
> >>
> >> Once we get input from all interested parties, we will decide on the next
> >> steps.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Javier
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] -
> >> https://ci.centos.org/job/tripleo-upstream-containers-build-master-ppc64le/
> >> [2] -
> >> https://centos.logs.rdoproject.org/tripleo-upstream-containers-build-master-ppc64le/422/logs/logs/000_FAILED_tripleoclient.log
> >> [3] - https://review.rdoproject.org/r/19063
> >> [4] -
> >> https://github.com/rdo-infra/review.rdoproject.org-config/blob/master/playbooks/tripleo-ci-periodic-base/containers-build.yaml#L12-L20
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> dev mailing list
> >> dev@lists.rdoproject.org
> >> http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > dev mailing list
> > dev@lists.rdoproject.org
> > http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
> >
> > To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev@lists.rdoproject.org
> http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
>
> To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@lists.rdoproject.org
http://lists.rdoproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
To unsubscribe: dev-unsubscr...@lists.rdoproject.org
